The article, “myths of the bogus refugee claimant” by Elis and Inglis, the authors, describes how the federal government of Canada has made sweeping changes immigration ministry during the last two years. The Canadian government maintains that this decision had been employed in order to protect the citizens from the dangers of bogus refuge claimants. According to this government, these bogus refugees constantly take advantage of Canadian generosity, through making false stories of persecution with the aim of benefiting with free necessities such as food and medical care. However, Elis and Inglis maintains that the logic and ideologies that lie within this decision of the federal government is inadequate and inaccurate (Ellis &Inglis 2014).
Elis and Inglis depicts that not all refugees are bogus and fraudsters of the Canadian immigration system. Moreover, Canadian government considers some countries as safe that produces genuine refugees, also produce bogus refugee claimants. The authors also negate with the Canadian government`s claim that free health care encourage bogus refugee claimants and that only those refugees whose claims have not been verified whether are true or false would safer from these government cuts (Ellis &Inglis 2014).
Ellis and ingis argument that there are no bogus refugee claimants in Canada is justified. For example, it’s unfair for the Canadian government to classified refugees whose claims are rejected as bogus and fraudsters (Ellis &Ingis 2014). This mode of reference has the possibility of criminalizing some innocent refugees seeking refuge. There are much more that needs to be considered before concluding a refugee is a fraudster. For instance, Ellis and Ingis reveals that the newly and brief timelines of refugees claim process are challenging and thus can make a refugee fail to give a substantial claim. Moreover, a refugee claim may be based on real sufferings, and this does not meet the set definition of refugee status.
Moreover, it is unfair for removing some refugee claimants whose claims have failed out of Canada while at the same time leaving others of the same status. The authors outline that when officers in Canada anticipates there is a risk of them being prosecuted for sending away some refugees, they opt to keep them in Canada (Ellis &Inglis 2014). In contrast, those refugees that they predict have no effect on them are retuned back to their countries of origin.
It is unfair for Canada to consider some countries as safe since the latter have a record of producing genuine refugees. It is established that the immigration and refugee board of Canada accepts numerous claims of refuges from Roma and Mexico (Ellis &Inglis 2014). The Ellis and ingis depicts that nowadays there are no countries that can be termed safe in terms of producing real refugees. Therefore, considering refugees from some regions at the expense of others is total discrimination. In addition, the assumption of the Canadian government that free health care attracts contributes to the rise of bogus refugees have no grounds. According to the authors, most of the refugees in Canada come from countries that provide free medical care to their citizens but they are forced to vacate due to fears of discrimination and persecution. Moreover, there has been no noted evidence that the social safety net of Canada or any other host country contributes to the migration of individuals.
Consecutively, it is unjust for the Canadian government to claim that, the cuts affect only those refugees whose claims have not been verified. However in the real sense, the cut are meant to all refugees regardless of whether their claims have been accepted or rejected. It is unfair and inhuman to deny prenatal care to expectant women and medical care to children just because the refugee claims of these women and mothers to these children have been rejected or have not yet founded (Ellis &Inglis 2014).
The Canadian government should admit that there are other reasons that motivated them to the drawing these policies that cut the care of refugees. This fact can be ascertained by the response of Canadian minister of immigration who negates the move of Ontario government of taking care of the gaps that are created by the federal cuts to refugee care. He argues that the decision of the Ontario government would encourage more refugee claimants (Ellis &Inglis 2014). In contrast, it is evident that when the cost of health care is partly or fully financed by donors, the cost of health care to the public is greatly reduced. The Ontario government`s move should instead be commended by the Canadian government rather than being undermined.
It is therefore evident that the federal government lacked logical ideologies before implementing these changes in the immigration system. There is need for reversals of these decisions and instead incorporate and implement policies that should benefit its citizens and in the long run promote humanitarian capacities. The federal government should understand that there are no bogus refugee claimants and thus their exclusionary policies would elevate the level of punishing the persecuted refugees and further fail the global commitment of hosting and providing of refugees.
Ellis, C., and Inglis, G. myths of the bogus refugee claimant, Cuts to health care undermine our humanitarian efforts. Retrieved on February 18, 2014, from http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/4371522-myths-of-the-bogus-refugee-claimant/